the conference that they had received instructions from
their government not to take the initiative of any
propositions; but that they were ready to hear and discuss
any proposal which might be submitted to the
conference. The representatives of the allied powers then
requested forty–eight hours to consider the form in
which they should make their proposal, and on the 19th
of April the plenipotentiaries of France and of Great
Britain, supported by the plenipotentiaries of Austria,
laid their proposition before the conference. The Russian
plenipotentiaries, on their side, asked for forty–
eight hours in order to prepare their answer to this
proposition. Accordingly, on the 21st, they gave their
answer, totally rejecting the propositions which had
been made to the conference. They stated, however,
that they had propositions to make on the part of their
government which they conceived would be in accordance
with the demand that Turkey should be united
more closely with the maintenance of the balance of
power in Europe, and that some restriction should be
placed upon the preponderance of Russia in the Black
Sea. The plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, and
Great Britain, found those proposals of Russia entirely
unacceptable, and refused to consider them in detail.
The plenipotentiary of Austria then said, that although
these propositions had been rejected, he trusted that all
the means of reconciling the belligerent parties by peace
were not yet exhausted. To this the plenipotentiaries
of France and of Great Britain replied that their instructions
were exhausted, and that they had no powers to
consider any further propositions. He then said he
thought it his duty to repair to his own government,
and lay before them the whole state of the case. The
French Minister of Foreign Affairs followed him a few
days afterwards, and was now, he believed, in Paris.
—In answer to repeated questions from Mr. Disraeli,
Lord PALMERSTON said that the protocols to be
produced would state very clearly what the nature of the
four points were; that these protocols would be laid
upon the table as soon as possible; and that he could
not promise to accompany them with the despatches
connected with the Austrian treaty.—In answer to Mr.
Bass, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Turkish
minister was, all through the negotiations, of the same
mind with the other allies.—In answer to Mr. Duncombe,
Lord PALMERSTON said that Russia had made
another proposition at Vienna since the departure of
Lord John Russell; but it had been rejected by the
allies.

On the motion for considering the amendments of the
Loan Bill, Sir FITZROY KELLY moved the omission of
clause 22, providing for the annual payment of £1,000,000,
after the conclusion of the war, until £16,000,000 Consols
be repaid.—After a long discussion, the amendment
was negatived by 210 against 111.

In committee on the Income–tax Bill, ministers
consented to an amendment on clause 1, moved by Mr.
HILDYARD, fixing the additional rate and duty on
incomes under £150 per annum and above £100 at 11/2d.
instead of 2d., as provided in the bill; because 2d. additional
upon incomes below £150 is a higher rate of
increase than 2d. upon incomes above £150.

The house went into committee on the Newspaper
Stamp Bill.—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
announced the conclusion he had come to with respect
to the registration clauses. After giving the matter the
best consideration he could, he proposed to allow the
existing law on that subject to remain as it was, and to
compel all newspapers to comply with the existing
regulations, both as regarded registration and security
against libel. By a new clause, the Chancellor limited
the privilege of retransmission by the post to a period of
fifteen days.—The copyright clauses, brought forward
by the government, gave rise to a lengthened discussion,
in which Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Milner Gibson, Lord
Lovaine, Lord Stanley, and others, objected to all
attempts at copyright as impracticable, while the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Phinn supported at
least the principle of copyright. In the end the government
withdrew the clause, leaving newspaper proprietors
to the remedy of the existing law.—Mr. MONCKTON
MILNES then brought forward a clause to allow the
privilege of transmission and retransmission through
the post to all newspapers embossed with the penny
stamp, and of which the printed superficies did not
exceed 3,500 inches. The clause was supported by Mr.
Lowe, Mr. Drummond, and others, and was opposed by
Lord Stanley, Mr. Milner Gibson, and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer; and, on a division, the clause was
rejected by a majority of 260 to 86. The other clauses
went through committee, and the report was ordered to
be received next day.

On Tuesday, May 1, Mr. SPOONER moved that the
house should resolve itself into committee, for the
purpose of considering the Acts for the Endowment of
the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal
of all national grants out of the consolidated fund for
the support of that establishment.—A debate ensued,
which was adjourned to the 6th of June.

On Wednesday, May 2, Sir JOHN PACKINGTON
moved the second reading of the Education Bill. Briefly
describing and defending the machinery of the bill, he
urged that in principle it was designed to combine the
most extended religious education with the widest
tolerance of sectarian distinctions. The funds that
would be required to carry out his system, the right
hon. baronet remarked, were to be provided for by
grants of public money, administered under the
supervision of local boards; but with some additional
machinery, rendering them accountable to the House of
Commons. All details, he submitted, might be left for
arrangement in committee; and he invited the house to
affirm the principle of this measure by consenting to
pass it through the stage of second reading.—Mr.
HENLEY moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read
a second time that day six months. His objections,
which the hon. member urged at great length, were
founded chiefly upon the apprehension that the bill
would diminish the certainty that all education receiving
public support should include the religious element, and
that it might tend to foster and extend the range of the
voluntary principle as regarded our educational
institutions.—The debate was adjourned.

On Thursday, May 3, Lord GROSVENOR moved the
second reading of the bill for suppressing Sunday Trading
in the Metropolis.—Mr. WILKINSON doubted whether
the subject were fit for legislation, but if it were deemed
necessary to legislate upon it, he considered that
the government should undertake that duty.—Lord
EBRINGTON expressed his cordial approbation of the
bill, as did the Marquis of BLANDFORD.—Sir G. GREY,
on behalf of the government, consented to allow the bill
to be read a second time, leaving for the committee any
further discussion of its details.—Mr. T. DUNCOMBE
believed that the working classes were almost universally
anxious to secure the proper observance of Sunday, but
pointed out various difficulties connected with the
arrangements of work, the payment of wages, and the
necessities of their domestic condition, which compelled
them to make many purchases on the morning of that
day. He recommended the promoters of the bill to
refer it to a select committee, and contended that some
general measure should be prepared upon the subject,
whose operation should not be limited to the metropolis.
—Mr. M. CHAMBERS viewed the measure as a great
boon to the operative and artisan classes of the metropolis.
—Mr. W. J. FOX observed that the bill presented
no coherent principle, as it left untouched a great mass
of work and duties which now fell upon many classes of
the community, especially upon domestic servants. The
measure, to be consistent, should be made universal in
its application.—Lord R. GROSVENOR said his reason
for limiting its operation to the metropolis was because
the evil of Sunday trading existed there to the greatest
extent.—The bill was then read a second time.—Mr.
DUNCOMBE moved that the measure should be sent
before a select committee.—The motion was seconded by
Mr. WILKINSON; but, after a few words from Sir G.
GREY, was withdrawn, and the committee on the bill
fixed for the 13th of June.

Mr. WHITESIDE brought forward for second reading
a series of six bills designed to improve and amend the
practice and course of procedure in the Irish Court of
Chancery.—Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD contended that Mr.
Whiteside had based his measures on erroneous
information, and framed them on principles which rendered